FATAL ERRORS SYSTEM – WINCHESTER JOURNALISM This system is designed to establish basic standards necessary before we move into live publication / broadcasting student work.
A piece of practical journalism work at the University of Winchester will not be given any credit, regardless of any other merit it may have, if it has any of the following problems:
1. Malice*
2. Dishonest presentation of sources/ dishonesty generally*
3. Causing Disrepute / Disruption*
4. Reckless inaccuracy in basic expression
5. Legal problems (without justification)
6. Regulatory Problems (without justification)
[errors/problems marked (*) and highlighted in red (in some versions of this document) may also result in failure of the entire module and in disciplinary action under the terms of the university’s student disciplinary code].
It should be noted that commission of any of the above six errors will not be balanced or mitigated by any other merits a piece of practical work may have. Absence of all six of these problems is an absolute pre-condition before a piece of practical work can be graded. But it may be helpful to note that assessors and tutors will give specific credit for the following attributes (over and above the basic requirement to demonstrate news worthiness and timeliness).
01. Disinterestedness /in the interest of the viewer/reader/public (vs malice/hype)
02. Development of professional contacts / honest work (vs poison sources)
03. Professionalism / responsibility (vs disruptive/ disreputable/ personalised)
04. 100 per cent factual accuracy (inc spelling, gram, punct) (vs sloppy/ lazy)
05. Up to date and working knowledge/application of media law
06. Up to date and working knowledge/application of media regulation
Red* = single instance will entail failure of module and may lead to disciplinary action leading to exclusion from the university (academic misconduct policy: 2.1 and 2.2; student disciplinary code: 1.2).
Orange = single instance will entail failure of particular piece of work regardless of any other merits it might have, but will not be regarded as a disciplinary matter. (academic misconduct policy - poor academic practice: 2.3).
Green = instances of work which will gain the highest credit.
- Malice - Writing or broadcasting something with main intention of doing harm to others or for personal gain or satisfaction. Writing or broadcasting in your own voice anything that you know to be untrue, or which is deliberately misleading. Allowing anything factual you know to be untrue, or which a reasonable person would believe likely to be untrue, to be broadcast or to be quoted on your authority. Penalty – automatic failure of module; refer to university for investigation for academic malpractice and possible exclusion/suspension.
Disinterestedness - Work honestly and only in the interests of your readers/ audience. Avoid reporting on stories where you have a personal interest or involvement of any sort; or could be accused or suspected (even wrongly suspected) of having such an involvement.
- Dishonest presentation of sources/ dishonesty generally - Any attempt to advocate or promote a product, service or cause with which you are in any way personally associated. The classic case is interviewing a friend, relative or associate, or a member of the public who you have persuaded to pose in order to help you complete an assignment. This is a subcategory of malice and will lead to automatic failure and possible disciplinary action for academic malpractice. If you are excluded on these grounds the fact will be stated on your academic record.
Development of professional contacts / honest hard work – Highest credit will be given to students who have used the available time to contact and interview the widest range of professional sources for example in local and central government agencies; in political parties and pressure groups; the courts and other forums of formal public life.
- Causing Disrepute / Disruption - Any attempt to use a journalism assignment to cause damage or harm (either deliberately or by recklessness) to the reputation or other interests of the institution, any member of the institution, the course, any member of the course team, or to the reputation of journalism and journalism education. Examples of instances of disrepute / disruptive behaviour include the following non-exhaustive list:
(a) In live production, publishing or altering or causing to be published material without proper approval within the editorial control system (for example during the production of Winchester News Online). Altering material once it has been approved for publication (even if the effect is innocuous). Refusing to remove material from a broadcast or website when requested to do so by an appropriate person (student, lecturer or other appropriate agent of the university). Any activity of any sort without limitation which either deliberately or recklessly exposes the university to the danger or possibility of any type of legal action without limitation, or to unjustified adverse criticism. Any of these actions is disruptive and can lead to disciplinary action (Student disciplinary code: 1.1 -‘legitimate activities’; 1.2.1 - ‘unreasonable behaviour’; 1.2.2 - ‘damage’; 1.2.3 - ‘misuse of assets’; 1.2.4 ; ‘fraud/impersonation’; 1.2.5 - ‘improper disruption’ – 1.2.7 – ‘causing fear or distress’ to members of university community.
(b) Production or preparation for publication or broadcasting, or the actual broadcasting of any material which is racist or discriminatory or which contains incitement to racial hatred or discrimination on other grounds (Student disciplinary code 1.2.9 and 1.2.10 – with or without an harassing effect). All students are required to prevent/ remove such material, to report any attempt to produce it and to ensure that it is not published or is quickly removed if published. Failure to report such action on the part of other students is in itself potentially a disciplinary affect, because of the contributory effect of inaction. Such an action is also contrary to the criminal law and the police will be informed (Student disciplinary code 2.4).
(c) As publisher the university has a reasonable expectation that all criticism should be fair, balanced and accurate (this general requirement is set out elsewhere in these guidelines). However deliberate attempts to unreasonably or repeatedly publish derogatory material about the university with the effect of attempting (or which tends to) bring the university into disrepute will be regarded as disruptive behaviour (Student disciplinary code 1.1; 1.2.1; 1.2.5)
(d) A series of low level disruptive acts, ranging from common disrespect, misuse of message boards, gratuitous insulting remarks, to bad time keeping, open flouting of academic advice, open or brazen proclamation of intent to do no work, talking across others in lectures or seminars may, taken together, behaviour likely to intimidate or offend other students; the making of repeated and false complaints against other students or against lecturers, failure to comply with reasonable requests of a minor nature (such as where people are sitting when occupying a room) constitute a single instance of serious disruptive behaviour.
Co-operative and professional behaviour in the public interest, active opposition to racism and other forms of social injustice – credit will be given to students who help achieve or uphold institutional objectives such as the active promotion of good race relations (Race Equality Policy, 2.1 – ‘General Duty’ – statutory; Winchester Values, 1 – ‘intellectual freedom’; 2 – ‘social justice, global citizens’; 3 - ‘delight in diversity’; 5 - ‘well-being’, etc) assuming this work meets all other criteria. Students engaged in work to promote good race relations or other work which is clearly in the public interest or within the institutional policies of the university will be given a high degree of credit (assuming it is good work in all other respects).
- Reckless inaccuracy in basic expression - Journalists do not normally write or broadcast at great length. In news reporting exercises students will normally be asked to write about 250 words in an exercise. It is important therefore that every word in such a report is positively checked for accuracy and there is time to do this. Checking time is part of the production process. Attributing an assertion of categorical fact to a false source, or an inadequate or biased source (eg the number of immigrants to an undisclosed or misleadingly named racist group) is malice (see above) and is grounds both for failure of the entire module (regardless of the quality of other work submitted) and possible disciplinary action.
It will be the case that from time to time you will make accidental and less significant errors (such as typing mistakes, mispronunciations on air or wrong spellings of common words). This is always bad, especially in student work where there is no pressure to produce large quantities of material against the clock, and credit will be removed. But these genuine accidents will not lead to failure if they are rectified (where necessary) immediately.
However the following list (not exhaustive) shows the main types of error which will lead assessors/tutor to take the view that facts and/or grammar have not been checked prior to submission. The work is therefore late (because it is not ready for publication/broadcasting):
(a) wrong spelling of any proper noun or uncommon word - Wrongly spelling a common word like ‘but’ is clearly a typing error or evidence of a condition like dyslexia (we do not discriminate). But the wrong spelling of Harry Redknapp, for example, would obviously indicate that the name was not checked. As would the wrong spelling of a word like maleficence (in a quote for example). This would also show that guesswork has been used. One of these errors in your copy and the work will fail, regardless of other merits. (These rules do not apply to this document or any other memo or document written for purposes other than publication, such as essays, though an exceptionally good standard of basic English mechanics is important for a journalist).
Check and/or attribute all facts (including the correct spelling and meaning of words). Check each word individually. Allow time for this. At least 30 mins per 250 words to begin with.
(b) incorrect synonyms / incorrect meaning of any ‘difficult’ word - This may indicate that the student has relied on a spell-checker (eg There vs Their) and/or has very low levels of capability (pre secondary school) in basic English expression to an extent that would rendered them unsafe in a newsroom or in live student production projects (libel actions can result from erroneous use of synonyms). A single instance will lead to a fail of the piece of work, regardless of any other positive attributes.
Do not rely on spell checkers, be certain of the meaning of every word you use or which you quote – they will from time to time actually insert synonym errors. Never write down or broadcast a word if you are not 100 percent sure of the meaning of that word (even in quotes as part of an interview). For example ‘disinterested’. Use the BBC stylebook (previously circulated) to memorise a list of these difficult words. If you do not know the meaning of a word leave it out, or find an alternative. Avoid ambiguous or contested words were possible. Extend your vocabulary as a conscious part of the extensive reading of newspapers you are already undertaking and good non-fiction literature.
c/ Failure to make subject and verb agree on plurality, tense and case within a sentence - This elementary error (in a common or simple case) will be taken as evidence that the student has not gained a confident grasp of basic sentence mechanics/ parts of speech. The error is not the bad luck in getting this wrong, but the inability to write accurate or reliable English in general.
Revise and practice basic accurate sentence construction until you are confident that you can write simple sentences accurately. You need to master this BEFORE you attempt journalism exercises. Follow and take an interest in technical discussions about English grammar, eg in Press Gazette. Henceforth all journalism exercises will be marked on the assumption that you have done this.
(d) Failure to punctuate quotes correctly/ incorrect use of verb of attribution - This is another elementary error in the critical taken as an indicator that the student is not yet confident and practised in accurate punctuation.
Revise and practice basic accurate sentence punctuation, and give special attention to punctuation of quotes. Before handing in work make sure you have positively checked the punctuation of your quotes. This is a difficult technical problem which you will need to revise and re-check throughout your academic and professional career (confusing and easy to forget).
- Work which can not be published or broadcast because of legal problems - All practical work submitted by students AFTER they have passed a module in media law and regulation is regarded as published or broadcast to the largest possible public audience, throughout the world (personal liability remains with the student if they have behaved with malice or recklessness). Such work can be failed if it has legal problems. Be aware that this means you are continuously assessed on your ability to apply media law to your work through all your practical work. Even if you pass a test at the end of the Media Law module, you can still fail a subsequent module if your legal knowledge is not good enough, and if you do not keep it up to date. In a sense every piece of practical work you do is a test in media law. The following problems would indicate to assessors/tutors that your mastery of media law is not good enough (the list is not exhaustive):
(a) Defamation without justification (but without malice) - It is often necessary or good in journalism to defame people, but the student who submits defamatory work must also submit a memo with an outline justification/defence to an action for libel and, in addition, all supporting evidence that would be needed to mount a defence to a libel action. This will require at least an understanding of when there might be a legal problem (requirement for a pass). Defamatory work where there is no ready or reasonable justification with be automatically failed, regardless of any other merits a piece of work might have. Defamation with malice and/or malicious falsehood can never be justified and will result in a fail being awarded for the entire module and in possible disciplinary action.
Strong controversial reporting work which may include the reporting of defamatory allegations, but nevertheless is legally sound and based on a good working knowledge of media law and regulation.
(b) Other legal or regulatory problems (without justification) - including lack of awareness of problems resulting from the law of contempt, confidentiality, privacy, incitement, trespass, copyright, child protection, etc (this list is not exhaustive). In each case the fail will be awarded if the student is not aware of potential difficulties, evidenced by an inability to provide a separate memo outlining a viable legal defence to any legal action resulting from publication or broadcast. If any of these problems arise from malice or recklessness rather than honest ignorance, then the student will fail the entire module and will face possible disciplinary action.
Astute selection of reporting assignments and feature ideas to avoid potential legal pitfalls and/or awareness of legal and regulatory issues from the outset. Evidence of aversion to gossip and unsubstantiated allegations made by unreliable sources..
- Work which would be likely to attract reasonable complaints due to breech of regulatory codes of conduct - this covers a wide range of potential difficulties which might mean the work, when submitted, could not be broadcast or published or would otherwise require further work to render it useable.
Good and up to date knowledge of the regulatory regime and various applicable codes of conduct – as well as knowledge of current cases kept up to date through regular reading of the journalism trade press.
[all ends]
